tia_inspect_unified_hmi

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces it, so safety is covered twice rather than adding much. The real added value is the explicit scope caveat — a selected primitive returns a scoped property baseline plus scripts, not a complete native import archive — which prevents an agent from assuming a full-fidelity export. No mention of performance, size limits, or version prerequisites beyond 'V20'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the operation and read-only nature, then a dense semicolon-separated list of path semantics, then the scope caveat. No wasted sentences; the middle sentence is heavy but deliberately parallel.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the hierarchical path model and the return-scope caveat well. It leaves the session-identity parameters (processId, processStartTimeUtc) and language unexplained, and gives no sense of response shape beyond the primitive caveat.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the empty-vs-populated semantics of three parameters (targetPath, screenPath, objectName), which is genuinely useful, but processId, processStartTimeUtc, projectPath, and language are left entirely to the bare schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('inspect') and a specific resource/scope ('Unified V20' HMI), which distinguishes it from tia_inspect_engineering and the several *_unified_hmi_* plan/apply siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling directly, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear operational pattern: empty targetPath lists targets, empty screenPath lists screens (including groups), empty objectName lists screen items — effectively documenting the drill-down usage of the tool. It does not state when to prefer this over siblings such as tia_list_hmi_targets or tia_inspect_engineering, so guidance is strong but not complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.